Something new may sometimes be a little scary or at the least - intimidating.

Keeping an open mind about change and concern for the future of the Association, lets talk about this.

I think many of us ( who don't compete in IMAC or Pattern ) will have questions and concerns and possibly some difficulties understanding - Scoring Normalization.

I think I see some advantages for this regarding - flight scoring - However, I'm still trying to wrap my little brain around - Static scoring normalization. It seems to me that now we are not receiving a score that reflects the model's individual scale accuracy but rather ( how the model COMPARES to the other models in a particular class ). Please help me understand normalization for STATIC JUDGING.

I was a former IMAC pilot, now converted to a full blown scale nut! Going through the Normalization of scores was a little scary when IMAC did it. Collectively we saw it as a good thing for the organization, and it has paid off for IMAC.

I understand your question why normalize the static score. First let me touch on flight scores. For those of us who compete regularly know that there is variability in judging, and that will NEVER go away. So long as they are consistent that's fine. When you have judges that give lower score, their score are almost always dropped. It's a fact, even when I've flown at Top Gun, I had a tendency to think, well this is my throw away flight. Normalizing flight scores creates the reality that the scores from the "tough judges" will be used in the final scoring.

In instance for static scoring, (as I understand it, I'm by no means a computer expert) all the scores need to be "normalized" in order for the program to work. We still do, and did get, our regular "raw" scores for both static and flying rounds." I do not know if there is the ability to post raw static score in the final standings.

For the right price... I can post anything... Working on a section which will have both raw and normalized scores so people can see it all... Taking a little bit since the current version of the normalized scoring sheets does not have any good reporting features in it... Everything is manual... But will get posted as I get time.

bwboland

Mike Barbee, Dave Johnson voted for normalization for the records. The vote was put to all of the pilots at the pilots meeting after a detail description on the process and impact. All but one pilot voted for normalization. The buzz at the event on the new scoring was incredibly positive!

Ken, the normalization is only for placement. As John mentioned, the raw scores are still retained, you are being judged individually, then your scores are "normalized" - the best static score is still the best static score, it only makes it easier for placement.

Something new may sometimes be a little scary or at the least - intimidating.

Keeping an open mind about change and concern for the future of the Association, lets talk about this.

I think many of us ( who don't compete in IMAC or Pattern ) will have questions and concerns and possibly some difficulties understanding - Scoring Normalization.

I think I see some advantages for this regarding - flight scoring - However, I'm still trying to wrap my little brain around - Static scoring normalization. It seems to me that now we are not receiving a score that reflects the model's individual scale accuracy but rather ( how the model COMPARES to the other models in a particular class ). Please help me understand normalization for STATIC JUDGING.

Hey! I see a possible point of contention/ place for the membership to have an issue with normalization. Yes it DID change the outcome of who won, and some may feel that's not fair.

Bob Patton is the contestent to have the most to gain and loose by going to normalization of scores. So, I had a direct conversation with him this morning about how he feels about the outcome, and asked if I can post it here, and he agreed.

He has alway been in favor of normalizing flight scores, and has been for years. He also understands that someone may get "burned" (for lack of a better word) when the change is made. The irony is that it's him that got the short deal. His feels that at the end of the day, this is going to be better for the organization as a whole and we need to keep it. Bob has been flying scale for years and is one of the few guys that still designs and flys new airplanes. If ANYONE should have a gripe its him, AND HE DOSEN'T!

He did bring up an interesting point. Why normalize the static score. He did the math, and that did change the standings. In reality, we did it because of the program, but is doesnt need to be done, since we all get judged by the same judges in each class,. The whole reason to normalize in the first place. As we upgrade the program to go "live, hopefully our "tech" guys can look into keeping the raw scores for static.

Hi everyoneJust read the form well parts on normalization and someone asked what I think. Now after reviewing the out come and why I think I may have voted too quickly. We were kind of under the gun it would seam to get it done but after my 4 hour drive home and a chance to think about it for the past 3 days I am not so sure. Reason number one, I have been a proponent to get the rules closer to all the scale org. NASA ,TG,SM but this isn't going to help. With the two year rule cycle of the AMA and as it's current president I don't see it being adapted to the AMA scale rule book. I have already been emailed by NASA members with their concerns against the change. I had a brief talk with Frank T and he also did not see a change in his rules yet. So now just another obstacle or difference in our rules. Second reason I would have liked to see Bob win. Don't get this wrong Scott did a great job flying and in static but if we did not change the rule he would not have won. Bob has been a long time supporter and competitor I feel bad for his efforts. I still hope we can get the big three scale bodies closer together with their rules.Mike

As the dust has settled from the Masters finals, I've been able to get out and fly with some of the local club guys. I've also spoke to some of the desinger guys from the northeast, as well as emailed Frank Tiano about "normalization" of flight scores. At the local level and with the past Masters desinger competitors, they do not understand normalization, and don't really care about going to it. In fact, I was told "Why are we making more rule and scoring changes that ADD to the confusion/differences between the 3 different rule bodies."

As I recall in the board meeting, we are suppose to be bringing the 3 organizations closer together, not further apart.

First, I'm not against normalizing the scores.. I understand it and have seen it working within IMAC.

Second, I agree we need to move the three rule bodies closer together. There was an attempt at this a few years ago when USSMA introduced the Advanced class. We were a little ahead of AMA in our classification but somewhere along the way AMA choose to use the term "Open" and not Advanced. Go figure... I have worded hard to educate the CD's on which AMA events equate to USSMA classes. I feel we should work harder to move closer to AMA classification and not Top Gun. Top Gun is one event a year, AMA scale contests are more frequent. Top Gun is not an even for the novice, AMA is. Makes more since to me to align closer to AMA/NASA as there is where the grown potential comes from.

Okay for what my two cents are worth - I am with Mike Barbee. I think the clean, clear, raw scores are the way to go with this HIGH END, Best of the Best Competition. It also standardizes with the AMA and Top Gun scoring. I might be great for IMAC competition but feel this USSM is not the correct venue for this scoring.

It seems to me that some people want the Scale Masters to be just another Flying contest and not to give much attention to Craftsmanship skills, talent or individual expression - the build.

I always loved the original IDEA of the U.S. Scale Masters - "Best of the Best" at building and flying....and the idea that the Masters was a very unique and special Association of "Like Minded Individuals" who appreciate building skills as well as flying skills.

I think the future I see ( from what I read about the "Rebirth" and "new scoring methods ) is one that focuses more on simplicity ( all the same type of model planes ) and less about diversity.

I revell in the diverse models that I see each year at our local Qualifiers and "Dream" about - one day I want to build and fly something as special as that.So far I'm not optimistic for "Preserving The Dream".

" As the dust has settled from the Masters finals, I've been able to get out and fly with some of the local club guys. I've also spoke to some of the desinger guys from the northeast, as well as emailed Frank Tiano about "normalization" of flight scores. At the local level and with the past Masters desinger competitors, they do not understand normalization, and don't really care about going to it. In fact, I was told "Why are we making more rule and scoring changes that ADD to the confusion/differences between the 3 different rule bodies."

As I recall in the board meeting, we are suppose to be bringing the 3 organizations closer together, not further apart.

Thanks Ken-Josie! Not to harp on this but Why did it have to be sprung in at the Finals? And does IMAC have Documentation for Static to equal 100 not to familiar with the IMAC rules? OK done here - But if the Finals come closer east there might be an increase in turnout at the Masters. Top Gun proves that.

Why it was sprung at the finals is still a mystery to me. As I understand it, from most of the BoD who attended a mid-year phone conference ( I was not able to attend) The NC brought up normalizing, it was agreed to use it along side the traditional scoring, then report/compare the results. It was not until arriving at the champs and hearing the announcement by the NC that we were aware of that change. I pushed for the pilots that at the very least there should be a vote to see if they wanted it or not. And that it should not be a "majority rules" vote, but if any pilot objected, it should not be used. At least there was a vote.

It's no secret I strongly objected to "springing" this on the pilots at the last minute.

It seems to me that some people want the Scale Masters to be just another Flying contest and not to give much attention to Craftsmanship skills, talent or individual expression - the build.

I always loved the original IDEA of the U.S. Scale Masters - "Best of the Best" at building and flying....and the idea that the Masters was a very unique and special Association of "Like Minded Individuals" who appreciate building skills as well as flying skills.

I think the future I see ( from what I read about the "Rebirth" and "new scoring methods ) is one that focuses more on simplicity ( all the same type of model planes ) and less about diversity.

I revell in the diverse models that I see each year at our local Qualifiers and "Dream" about - one day I want to build and fly something as special as that.So far I'm not optimistic for "Preserving The Dream".

Ken.

Well put Ken,

I don't think dumbing down USSMA will help but blend it into nothing. I don't agree with allowing novice pilots at the championship event. There should be something to work for.

The "rebirth" post by Larry has some good points, but some are already in place and we have not done a good job of expressing the rules and classes...

Fun Scale is what Larry is changing to Pro-am with Pro-am pro being a combination of Open/Advanced with a very dumbed down static scoring.

We have always stressed "building" as part of USSMA and that is why Open is a 30 point static and based on more than just a picture. My involvement with USSMA is what caused me to start a build project.

Yes, Top Gun is a prestigious event, but it is not an event for novice pilots and it's only one event, AMA events are, that is where we are going to get the interested. Qualifiers can be a combination USSMA and AMA rules... or all USSMA or all AMA.. Participation at the local level it the best way to keep USSMA alive. As was mentioned, mentoring is the best way to get more participation.

Ok it's time to STOP chasing our tails on what it will take to bring back the Scale Masters.

As I read the forum posts I see a lot of good ideas. There is one thing lacking........... A CLEAR understanding of why guys who hae qualified for the finals dont show. I have personally heard some didnt like the East facing site, others didn't get notfied in time, some dont like the fact the Designer class is gone etc. There's also a TON of finger pointing going on.

NOW, the ONLY way to get a true pulse on how the membership feels is................ask? BEFORE there are any more "changes made" do a FROMAL survey of the membership. Specifically the 60-70 odd pilots who qualified and didn't show. Develop a survey form and MAIL it to them with return postage. Give them a deadline to respond, follow up with a phone call to ensure it gets done. THEN sit down as a board and see where we need to go. Until this is done, we're just waisting time posting about it rather than getting out there, and showing the local guys what scale modeling is about.

And for the record MITCH.......Top Gun is a prestigious event AND there are SEVERAL guys in the ProAM classes that have NEVER flown in competition before. AND as a competitor who has been there and done that, the Pro AM class planes are very well built and NONE look like ARF's.The odd thing thing is Frank is willing to give a new guy who has an awesome plane a chance to play on a stage that is well known world wide, and we seem to not want to do that.

bwboland

Well now let's talk about the real problem. Having a judge spread from high 80's to high 90's devalue the lower judges.

Every set of judges have the same curve of the highest to the lowest flight in any class, the best flight always get the best scores. All normalization does is make the Santa Claus and Chainsaw judges equal. The scoring maneuver to maneuver stays the same. If that made the difference in Bob and Scott for a change it was fairer. The old method only works if you throw out the high and low flights and then it is still not a real view of how the pilot flew. Nothing more deflating than flying your best flight in front of the hard judges and get an 88.5 knowing if it was in front of the Santa Claus group it would have been a 96. What I can tell you, is the judges all understood the value before the contest and I feel they judged harder for all pilots. Look at the raw scores, the lowest I have ever seen at the champs. Food for thought!

one possible solution: have someone fly a "calibration-flight" before the contest begins. Gather all judges and have a contest pilot fly either his model or a simple trainer to fly an entire flight-routine of a sampling of maneuvers and each judge ( no talking between them ) write his scores. The C.D. then has a idea of who the "Santa Claus" judges will be and who the "Chain-Saw" ones will be. Maybe then a "pre-contest" judges breifing can be conducted to get all judges more inline.

I don't really think that the scoring method is really an issue - I have heard the same gripes for 20+ years. It is what it is and no matter how you do it - someone will be unhappy. Ken, there usually is a "calibration flight" - but judges are people and people are falible, you will always have Santas and Texas Chainsaws.

I once tried 4 static judges who were supposed to judge all 3 static categories - the plan was to throw out the high and low. My mistake was allowing a judge who had an issue and gave everyone full marks - really screwed things up.

As has been said before - the best thing we EACH can do is to find someone who expresses some interest in scale and then get him involved.

John, I think your idea of a poll of the no-shows is an excellent idea. We just have to figure out who will be in charge!